Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

zomginternets wrote:People who are not US citizens who want to be a federal clerk might have to do a volunteer clerkship, even if s/he has the credentials that would otherwise have gotten him/her a paid clerkship.

Is this a viable strategy? I may be in this position and am finding conflicting information. OCSAR asks for citizenship status when you register, so does that mean your app will just be turned away automatically if you select non-citizen? I would definitely do a volunteer federal clerkship for a year, but am not even sure if I should go through the hassle of applying if that's not a possibility.

Unknown. I don't know of anyone that has gotten around the citizenship issue using this strategy, but hey there's a first for everything. Just apply, and on your cover letter make it clear that if your non-citizen status is a problem that you'd work for free. Also, I don't think it's that much hassle--ask your profs for recs and polish a writing sample you did over the summer.. let OSCAR do the rest.

Anonymous User wrote:They're not identical. A volunteer clerk is not paid and has not gone through the gauntlet of clerkship hiring. I'm not sure why people are surprised that some current or future clerks are upset about volunteer clerks leaving off the qualifier. Once you have busted your butt to be in the top 5% of the class, developed the relationships with prof's for great recommendations, and then successfully navigated the miserable clerkship hiring process, then people get a bit touchy about it.

What some people seem to be missing is that a clerkship, in addition to providing an amazing learning experience, is also, for better or worse, a mark of distinction. After all, if there wasn't signaling value to the term "clerk", then no one would be asking whether it is appropriate to leave off the important "volunteer" qualifier.

Okay. The work and experience is presumably identical. Should people who get into Michigan without taking the LSAT have to put it on their resume? What the fuck does the gauntlet have to do with anything?

I am not remotely surprised people are touchy about it, I just note that bitching about it, and trying to impose made-up standards of conduct on volunteer clerks, makes them raging assholes. You think employers stop looking at credentials when they see the federal clerkship on your resume? Go check out the attorney bios at Orrick's West Virginia doc review factory and count the federal clerkships.

Anonymous User wrote:They're not identical. A volunteer clerk is not paid and has not gone through the gauntlet of clerkship hiring. I'm not sure why people are surprised that some current or future clerks are upset about volunteer clerks leaving off the qualifier. Once you have busted your butt to be in the top 5% of the class, developed the relationships with prof's for great recommendations, and then successfully navigated the miserable clerkship hiring process, then people get a bit touchy about it.

What some people seem to be missing is that a clerkship, in addition to providing an amazing learning experience, is also, for better or worse, a mark of distinction. After all, if there wasn't signaling value to the term "clerk", then no one would be asking whether it is appropriate to leave off the important "volunteer" qualifier.

Okay. The work and experience is presumably identical. Should people who get into Michigan without taking the LSAT have to put it on their resume? What the fuck does the gauntlet have to do with anything?

I am not remotely surprised people are touchy about it, I just note that bitching about it, and trying to impose made-up standards of conduct on volunteer clerks, makes them raging assholes. You think employers stop looking at credentials when they see the federal clerkship on your resume? Go check out the attorney bios at Orrick's West Virginia doc review factory and count the federal clerkships.

Lots of USAOs are hiring "Special AUSAs" now that do all the work as the AUSAs but are unpaid and on a 1- or 2-year term. Should they just call themselves AUSAs?

Anonymous User wrote:They're not identical. A volunteer clerk is not paid and has not gone through the gauntlet of clerkship hiring. I'm not sure why people are surprised that some current or future clerks are upset about volunteer clerks leaving off the qualifier. Once you have busted your butt to be in the top 5% of the class, developed the relationships with prof's for great recommendations, and then successfully navigated the miserable clerkship hiring process, then people get a bit touchy about it.

What some people seem to be missing is that a clerkship, in addition to providing an amazing learning experience, is also, for better or worse, a mark of distinction. After all, if there wasn't signaling value to the term "clerk", then no one would be asking whether it is appropriate to leave off the important "volunteer" qualifier.

Okay. The work and experience is presumably identical. Should people who get into Michigan without taking the LSAT have to put it on their resume? What the fuck does the gauntlet have to do with anything?

I am not remotely surprised people are touchy about it, I just note that bitching about it, and trying to impose made-up standards of conduct on volunteer clerks, makes them raging assholes. You think employers stop looking at credentials when they see the federal clerkship on your resume? Go check out the attorney bios at Orrick's West Virginia doc review factory and count the federal clerkships.

OK... So, I counted. Out of ~30 attorneys, 1 was a career clerk in WDPA, 1 clerked in WDPA (after a state trial court clerkship), and 1 clerked for a magistrate judge in Northern District of WV.... What's your point?

Anonymous User wrote:They're not identical. A volunteer clerk is not paid and has not gone through the gauntlet of clerkship hiring. I'm not sure why people are surprised that some current or future clerks are upset about volunteer clerks leaving off the qualifier. Once you have busted your butt to be in the top 5% of the class, developed the relationships with prof's for great recommendations, and then successfully navigated the miserable clerkship hiring process, then people get a bit touchy about it.

What some people seem to be missing is that a clerkship, in addition to providing an amazing learning experience, is also, for better or worse, a mark of distinction. After all, if there wasn't signaling value to the term "clerk", then no one would be asking whether it is appropriate to leave off the important "volunteer" qualifier.

Okay. The work and experience is presumably identical. Should people who get into Michigan without taking the LSAT have to put it on their resume? What the fuck does the gauntlet have to do with anything?

I am not remotely surprised people are touchy about it, I just note that bitching about it, and trying to impose made-up standards of conduct on volunteer clerks, makes them raging assholes. You think employers stop looking at credentials when they see the federal clerkship on your resume? Go check out the attorney bios at Orrick's West Virginia doc review factory and count the federal clerkships.

Lots of USAOs are hiring "Special AUSAs" now that do all the work as the AUSAs but are unpaid and on a 1- or 2-year term. Should they just call themselves AUSAs?

They have a different title that's recognized; no one is going to tell them to go ahead and call themselves AUSAs. Not analogous.

Would you note that you're not being paid for "X 1L internship"? No? Then why would you for a volunteer clerkship?

Just be honest on your resume about what your job duties were. Don't try to make it seem like you were doing the same thing that non-volunteer clerks were doing if you weren't actually doing those things. Otherwise, I fail to see how your level of pay has any relevance to the experience you developed.

Martin34 wrote:People who aren't smart enough to get a real clerkship shouldn't reap the same benefits (resume boost) as those who are. Be honest and put "volunteer."

But they were smart enough to get it without having to work at hard at lawl school. Sounds like they pwnd you, and you are now jelly.

This.

cantaboot wrote:let's look at it this way.If the volunteer clerks (I don't think they are non-real as someone put it) think they are not inferior, why don't they just put volunteer law clerk? plain and simple.

Martin34 wrote:People who aren't smart enough to get a real clerkship shouldn't reap the same benefits (resume boost) as those who are. Be honest and put "volunteer."

But they were smart enough to get it without having to work at hard at lawl school. Sounds like they pwnd you, and you are now jelly.

This.

cantaboot wrote:let's look at it this way.If the volunteer clerks (I don't think they are non-real as someone put it) think they are not inferior, why don't they just put volunteer law clerk? plain and simple.

You're missing the whole point of this thread.

He's not missing the point at all. The reality is that volunteer clerks don't want to put "volunteer law clerk" because they're afraid that other people will (correctly) see them as inferior.

Think about it this way: when a former volunteer clerk sends their resume (which omits "volunteer") out to firms that pay $50k bonuses for a real clerkship, you don't think that's deceptive (and probably fraudulent)?

Think about it this way: when a former volunteer clerk sends their resume (which omits "volunteer") out to firms that pay $50k bonuses for a real clerkship, you don't think that's deceptive (and probably fraudulent)?

Are you serious? If your judge says its ok to put "law clerk" without "volunteer" or whatever, then its totally fine - in the same way that if a company hired you into their "volunteer intern" program you could put that you were an "intern" on your resume without "volunteer" and it would by no means be "fraudulent".

Uptight law students in this thread - you need to step back and think outside of the law school prestige-obsessed bubble and stop getting so worked up about nothing. Can't you asshats just be happy for people and not so defensive about your prestige points?

Blindmelon wrote:Uptight law students in this thread - you need to step back and think outside of the law school prestige-obsessed bubble and stop getting so worked up about nothing. Can't you asshats just be happy for people and not so defensive about your prestige points?

You sound very prole.

If volunteer "clerks" think that their volunteer experience is equatable to a real clerkship, then the volunteer "clerks" can put "Volunteer Clerk" on their resume. No reason to be deceptive.

Blindmelon wrote:Uptight law students in this thread - you need to step back and think outside of the law school prestige-obsessed bubble and stop getting so worked up about nothing. Can't you asshats just be happy for people and not so defensive about your prestige points?

You sound very prole.

If volunteer "clerks" think that their volunteer experience is equatable to a real clerkship, then the volunteer "clerks" can put "Volunteer Clerk" on their resume. No reason to be deceptive.

.... I'm saying its not deceptive. You haven't offered a reason why it is.

Blindmelon wrote:Uptight law students in this thread - you need to step back and think outside of the law school prestige-obsessed bubble and stop getting so worked up about nothing. Can't you asshats just be happy for people and not so defensive about your prestige points?

You sound very prole.

If volunteer "clerks" think that their volunteer experience is equatable to a real clerkship, then the volunteer "clerks" can put "Volunteer Clerk" on their resume. No reason to be deceptive.

.... I'm saying its not deceptive. You haven't offered a reason why it is.

Gives employers the impression that you were hired as a real clerk, not as a volunteer.

I do not even qualify for a fed clerkship and so I have no reason to feel uptight or defensive at all on this matter.

Law firms are pretty flexible and some firms hire volunteer legal interns; others do not; some take interns with no pay and then turn the positions into paid ones. so, by putting "legal intern" for a firm you are not being deceptive at all.

Judicial clerkships, unless otherwise stated, create a presumption that they are paid and regular ones.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them fraudulent or call these clerks "non-real" clerks, though.

Last edited by cantaboot on Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blindmelon wrote:Uptight law students in this thread - you need to step back and think outside of the law school prestige-obsessed bubble and stop getting so worked up about nothing. Can't you asshats just be happy for people and not so defensive about your prestige points?

You sound very prole.

If volunteer "clerks" think that their volunteer experience is equatable to a real clerkship, then the volunteer "clerks" can put "Volunteer Clerk" on their resume. No reason to be deceptive.

.... I'm saying its not deceptive. You haven't offered a reason why it is.

Gives employers the impression that you were hired as a real clerk, not as a volunteer.

So what makes a clerk "real" as opposed to "fake"? Both are selected by judges in a competitive application process. Is it because one has a GS level and the other doesn't?